Forum: Author Hangout

Bra size—When to break a Rule of Porn?

You know the rule, anyone can tell bra size (chest and cup) from 100 feet away in dim light, even if the wearer is male. A favorite of many authors, especially those who appear to be just starting out. When I'm reading I take it as a negative, although I've read many stories worth the read despite naming the size.

When, if ever, is it useful / effective / advances the story / describes character [insert here any other writerly term you wish] to provide the bra size---34B, 44DDD, etc.?

Having the protagonist notice a bra in the laundry and pick it up to read the label doesn't count, unless the action does one of those things listed above.

Read an interesting article recently where women testers tried on bras in different shops. They found significant differences in the size that fit them best in each shop. And considering that breast size is constantly changing with eg time of day, time of month, whether the owner is looking at me, then stating a definitive size is surely something a male author would do.

However I can think of one reason bra sizes might be mentioned - when it's one of those stories in which the woman undergoes a change in breast size due to magic or science, and the author feels the need to give the reader a before and after comparison.

You know the rule, anyone can tell bra size (chest and cup) from 100 feet away in dim light, even if the wearer is male.

A lot depends on the degree of precision you are implying. No, not everyone can tell, but everyone can guess. I really don't see the problem with it as long as it is clear that the POV character is guesstimating.

ETA: I have a couple of scenes in my stories where a female character is being professionally measured for custom clothing.

And considering that breast size is constantly changing with eg time of day, time of month, whether the owner is looking at me, then stating a definitive size is surely something a male author would do.

Sure, it changes over time, but how much does it change over the course of a day/month. I rather doubt it's more than half a cup size.

Read an interesting article recently where women testers tried on bras in different shops. They found significant differences in the size that fit them best in each shop.

That's a significant problem and, according to an authoritative source (I'm married to her), finding a store with knowledgeable bra fitters is worth gold. The NYT had a piece a few years ago about a woman who was the city's premier bra fitter.

ETA: I have a couple of scenes in my stories where a female character is being professionally measured for custom clothing.

Thanks. I was speaking facetiously in quoting the Rule, but even if it is possible to detect at a distance (why would anyone need to do that, anyway?) the real question is what you answered: an example of non-gratuitous sizing. Which is presumably done up close and personal.

No one needs to do it, but a lot of guys (and some women) are obsessed with breasts and breast size, so they do it a lot anyway.

One other complication in guessing bra sizes that AJ didn't mention.

Cup size is relative, based on the difference between the band size (under breast chest measurement) and the bust measurement (chest size measured around the breasts). That can mean that a C-cup on a 4'11" thin built woman can look proportionally larger than a D-cup on a 6' woman with a wider frame.

I try to go with sizing by comparison to real life objects - i.e. 'Her breasts were the size of oranges' type thing. But have mentioned an actual size a few times when they were an unusual size and the character checks what size they are. I do it that way to make the characters seem more realistic.

And considering that breast size is constantly changing with eg time of day, time of month, whether the owner is looking at me, then stating a definitive size is surely something a male author would do.

Sure, it changes over time, but how much does it change over the course of a day/month. I rather doubt it's more than half a cup size.

There was a newspaper (one of the more reputable ones!) story recently about how bra sizes have changed over the years. It appears that what was a C cup after the war is nor an E cup (or thereabouts).

Personally I cannot see how anyone can make out the numbers and letters of some woman in normal cool weather street clothing. She may look small busted but you don't know if she is wearing an undersized bra or is otherwise holding herself in. Alternatively she may not be wearing a bra ....

I used to subscribe to that philosophy. Then I was married to a woman with natural 38DD's. That's when I found the joy of tit fucking combined with a blowjob. It really does exist outside of porno flicks, which I was pleasantly surprised to find out. (She's also the one who introduced me to anal and threesomes since she was bi. One of these days I ought to write about that marriage ... which was, now that I think about it, and tt's really depressing, more than 20 years ago.)

Going back to your post BB, you asked when it would advance the story to give bra size.

I can see someone trying to give a physical description of a female character and her breast size is important in the story. Just saying she has big breasts is relative description for how big is big. Saying she has 44DDD breast is more definitive.

Cup size is relative, based on the difference between the band size (under breast chest measurement) and the bust measurement (chest size measured around the breasts). That can mean that a C-cup on a 4'11" thin built woman can look proportionally larger than a D-cup on a 6' woman with a wider frame.

In terms of volume/tissue alone, a woman with a 40" chest but "A Cup" breasts(more likely to be a correct description on an older male, but anyhow...) Would have as much, or even more "breast tissue" than a woman with a 32" chest and "D cup" breasts IIRC.

In terms of volume/tissue alone, a woman with a 40" chest but "A Cup" breasts(more likely to be a correct description on an older male, but anyhow...) Would have as much, or even more "breast tissue" than a woman with a 32" chest and "D cup" breasts IIRC.

True, but I'm taking about how she would be perceived by an on looker. A short thin woman with a C cup would "look" like she had bigger breasts than a tall wide(but not fat) woman with a D cup.

True, but I'm taking about how she would be perceived by an on looker. A short thin woman with a C cup would "look" like she had bigger breasts than a tall wide(but not fat) woman with a D cup.

Yeah, the "stocky frames" hide it better, even when they're a comparable or even larger cup size even after adjusting to the larger band size. More frame to distribute it across, and as a consequence, better odds of optical illusions coming into play and further masking things because of that larger volume/"spread." At least while viewing from a distance.

Kind of like a tsunami, but different principles in play, which makes it a bad comparison. Probably more in line with photography tricks where you can make an economy car look like it is nearly the same size as an 18 wheeler.

Edit: Although I think clothing in particular tends to play a role in this "optics" issue, clearly someone needs to volunteer to pursue further investigation, with plenty of topless women to compare against. ;)

Although I think clothing in particular tends to play a role in this "optics" issue, clearly someone needs to volunteer to pursue further investigation, with plenty of topless women to compare against. ;)

I tend to mention it to give a general idea of the figure of the woman I'm describing, not because the size is important. Plus there are still a few authors out there who haven't a clue as to how the measurements work. The first size is measured under the breasts, hence anything over 38" (in my opinion) is getting on for a large woman. The letter is the cup size and that's what most guys notice.

There was a newspaper (one of the more reputable ones!) story recently about how bra sizes have changed over the years. It appears that what was a C cup after the war is nor an E cup (or thereabouts).

Rather strange if that's the case.

Each cup size is meant to be one inch larger than the one before it.

So for a 32", 38" and 44" chest, then the measured bust for a woman with A cup sized breasts would be 33", 39" and 45" respectively. For C cup sized breasts they would be 35", 41" and 47" respectively.

The first size is measured under the breasts, hence anything over 38" (in my opinion) is getting on for a large woman. The letter is the cup size and that's what most guys notice.

Yeah, but as a guy who wears 46Rs, and having sisters who also picked up that larger frame(female edition), I can attest to their existence.

Although I have no clue on what their measurements are in that department, I'd expect upper 30's at a minimum for two of them all the same(before getting into cup sizes). They're nearly as tall and broad (shouldered) as I am, slightly smaller, and certainly different enough to tell a gender difference, but not much past that. Their torso (less bust) is still larger than some men. In the case of one, I think she wears the larger shirt(blouse) size between herself and her husband.

When, if ever, is it useful / effective / advances the story / describes character [insert here any other writerly term you wish] to provide the bra size---34B, 44DDD, etc.?

The correct, though rarely employed, method is to not list specific sizes, but use relative metrics (tiny, HUMONGOUS, Bozongers, floppy, double-handful, etc.) You approximate the size, rather than giving specific measurements the characters would have no way of knowing. Hell, few women know their actual bra sizes, as the vast majority of women wear the incorrect bra size (i.e. once measured, they rarely remeasure).

My favorite was always "built like a brick shithouse", though that typically refers to high tight (muscular) someone's ass is.

It was originally intended to infer: quality built, sturdy and they 'get the job done'! (Hence the reference to the tone of their ass, as they could kick yours if they wanted to.)

I generally held to that. Basically a "highly athletic" physique, but still feminine--not to an extensive bodybuilding degree. So muscular, not muscle-bound, and a little body fat to soften the edges. As well as "well proportioned" well, "physical assets"(boobs, butt) and a "decent face" to go with it.

So yeah, not a "girly girl" because she probably can kick the ass of more than a few guys, and just generally pin-up material all around.

So in some respects, the prototype for a stereotypical cheerleader that is seriously involved in "competitive cheerleading" rather than the high-school power politics and "look pretty at games" type. (Which isn't to say they can't do that too) But the competition cheerleaders are not girls to piss off, they're a lot tougher than they look.

So in some respects, the prototype for a stereotypical cheerleader ... look pretty

WTF???
This may just be the Australian interpretation, to me it means built like a (rugby) front-row forward.
We'd usually only use it to describe a man, and it suggests something like maximum height of 5'10", minimum weight over 200 pounds, and it's all muscle!
For women it suggests - probably does play rugby as a front-row forward, wears designer overalls when going out dancing, and has 'LESBO' tattooed across her forehead!

Basically a "highly athletic" physique, but still feminine--not to an extensive bodybuilding degree.

Not in Australia.
Being built like a brick shit house means they are short and squat & at the very least unattractive (if not downright ugly).
As Ross at Play posted, it generally refers to men. Were it to refer to a woman she would be short, solid, no breasts or bum to mention.
Just a solid lump of a human.

How you can consider something like that to describe a female that is considered in attractive I just can't get my head around.

Describing someone as built like a brick shithouse will be interpreted as them being particularly unattractive here in Australia & New Zealand, and i'd expect the UK as well.

In Australia it always means broad shoulders and heavy.
It definitely means particularly unattractive for women.
It probably wouldn't imply a man was particularly unattractive. The expression would only be used by men, and no Aussie man would ever comment on how attractive or unattractive another man was - except those in the alphabet soup brigade!
I think for both it means muscular rather than obese.
* If describing a man it means someone you wouldn't want to get into a fight with, not a fatso.
* If describing a woman who was both ugly and obese, any Aussie man would get creative and find something much more insulting than merely "built like a brick shithouse".

I assumed it meant someone relatively wide for their height, possibly desirable in rugby players (male or female or other) but not so in typical people.

That's close enough. The heaviest players in a rugby team are usually the front-row and second-row forwards. The front-row forwards are usually much shorter - and they are the ones who would be built like a brick shithouse.
For a woman it also means so ugly she could serve time in a men's prison and come out with her virtue still intact.

Being built like a brick shit house means they are short and squat & at the very least unattractive (if not downright ugly).
As Ross at Play posted, it generally refers to men. Were it to refer to a woman she would be short, solid, no breasts or bum to mention.

Which just means that there are variations in slang around the world. And just as you don't want to visit Australia because all the wildlife there wants to kill you (seriously, HOW big are your spiders?), you speak nearly a different language.

I think rlfj is making the language thing clear is his latest work, Island Delight, actually. :)

(I work with someone from New Zealand - he's been here almost twenty years, and he'll still say some weird shit that's supposed to be funny down there and here in redneck USA everyone looks at him like, what?)

And just as you don't want to visit Australia because all the wildlife there wants to kill you (seriously, HOW big are your spiders?),

... and don't forget about the crocodiles, sharks, and the most poisonous snakes in the world!
Such is the myth ...
The total number killed by spiders, snakes, crocodiles, and sharks is LESS than the number by being thrown from or trampled by horses!
It's been over 30 years since ANYONE has died from spider bite, since an antivenom for the funnelweb spider was produced.
It is true our creepy, crawly, and slithery are the most venomous in the world. If you do get bitten by some of them you'll very likely end up in hospital, but the number of bites is low, and very few are fatal.

You are more likely to be killed in Redneck USA by police for behaving suspiciously ... tanned!

This may just be the Australian interpretation, to me it means built like a (rugby) front-row forward.

At least in the case of my usage, it may be due to picking it up via other parties who didn't properly understand its usage when they encountered it. I don't see/encounter it often as I recall, so hasn't mattered much anyhow. I'll defer to others as to the previous interpretation being wrong.

(It's possible the person involved, however far back that particular chain runs, may have been "set up for a fall" as it were, and never encountered the punchline as it were)

Edit: Which isn't to mention confusion with "brick house" rather than "shithouse"(outhouse)

Which just means that there are variations in slang around the world. And just as you don't want to visit Australia because all the wildlife there wants to kill you (seriously, HOW big are your spiders?)

Short answer: really effing big. When a huntsman wandered through my daughter's open window I really wished I had a shotgun.That thing was three feet across, easily. (OK, would you believe 4-5 inches, tip to tip?)

Instead, half a can of RAID and a dustpan and the sucker was back out the window and into the garden where he belonged.

Did you ever see that mid-90s ABC production, "The Seven Deadly Sins"? The first episode, "Lust," starring among others a younger Hugo Weaving, is a dinner party gone badly wrong. Weaving is a widower who wonders how it happened that his wife was eaten by a crocodile late one night and what was she doing by the river, anyway?

Spoiler: She was screwing his friend and business partner, which comes out later when the three couples are totally sloshed and start telling truths to each other.

It's been over 30 years since ANYONE has died from spider bite, since an antivenom for the funnelweb spider was produced.

Yes, Australia is infamous for those but nasties are spreading to Europe. I found a False Widow Spider in the UK kitchen - could be very painful but not fatal. Worse, at lunch in France a tiny spider fell onto my wife's head and she started itching. Straight to the doctor who immediately recognised that we had been sitting under a Lime Tree. The treatment was two months of a new antibiotic created for cases where the problem is resistant to normal antibiotics plus constant use of a cream used to sterilise the skin prior to surgery. Two months antibiotics? - apparently if we had not seen the doctor so soon it could have caused gangrene, surgery and an eight month recovery period!

Did you ever see that mid-90s ABC production, "The Seven Deadly Sins"?

No. And I cannot find any torrents for it either.

I looked for it in the ABC store and never found it. All I have is a bad DVD copied from a bad VHS tape of that episode that I recorded off the air at the time. And which for some reason also has half an episode of the soap opera "Neighbors" (I think it was).

UPDATE: It's for sale on Amazon in the U.S., NTSC only. Still couldn't find it in the ABC store.

SECOND UPDATE: Forget that. It's a bad description on IMDB. The one I mentioned is actually a History Channel special. May be good, who knows, but it's not the Australian ABC production. Sorry.

in France a tiny spider fell onto my wife's head ... apparently if we had not seen the doctor so soon it could have caused gangrene, surgery and an eight month recovery period!

Isn't the only surgery for gangrene amputation?

If your wife was bitten on the head and then needed surgery, an eight month recovery period seems a bit optimistic. ;)
Replies:
Dominions Son

Fortunately we caught it in time and before gangrene set in. Took about three months to finally "conquer" it and the marks disappeared after about 6 months.

We were too far south for the "Adder" seen in Britain and northern France but we had other varieties of Vipers (one killed our neighbour's German Shepherd Dog) even in the house and in the roof tiles, hornets, asps but in 18 years I never saw any scorpions though I know they had been seen around - those ones are not dangerous.

Keep in mind I live in Oklahoma. I've killed a nest of black widow spiders (NOT the false widows - we know what those are, too) in my own backyard, and it's not uncommon to have a rattlesnake (or 20) find it's way into your crawlspace. But there's nothing quite as creepy as watching a group of tarantulas migrate across a field - we had about 30 of them chasing after an injured bird in the field next to work last fall during their annual migration.

But there's nothing quite as creepy as watching a group of tarantulas migrate across a field

A few years before I was born my parents were driving through a part of South Australia that was primarily wheat fields.
While driving at night, it looked as though the road ahead was moving in the headlights, then they realized what it was. There was a mouse plague and the ground for several miles was almost completely covered in 100,000s of mice scurrying about.

The big ones aren't a problem. It's many of the small ones that can be really dangerous

The one I saw in my wife's hair was about 1/4 inch across including legs. I simply have to assume that it was the thing which caused the problem.

When I was based in the City of London there was a passageway on the way to work which they had to close off during the summer, allegedly because of insects falling from the trees which "could cause allergic reactions". When I made enquiries at the council as to exactly what those insects were I got passed from pillar to post and never found out.

Although I have no clue on what their measurements are in that department, I'd expect upper 30's at a minimum for two of them all the same(before getting into cup sizes). They're nearly as tall and broad (shouldered) as I am, slightly smaller, and certainly different enough to tell a gender difference, but not much past that. Their torso (less bust) is still larger than some men. In the case of one, I think she wears the larger shirt(blouse) size between herself and her husband.

What if the breasts (cup sizes) are lopsided? Could a woman be a 32 C/B, or in extreme cases 38 GG/B?

k shithouse will be interpreted as them being particularly unattractive here in Australia & New Zealand, and i'd expect the UK as well.

Just a guess, but I suspect Australia saw the term late without accompanying photo and assumed it referred to the physical shape, rather than a quality description (a comparison of brick vs wood shanty).

There are a still quite a few around, hence why when someone is said to look like one, it's not a complementary term.
Sure, many wooden ones were often run down, but only because they were no longer used. Those still in use were (and are) often generally well maintained. But even a well maintained brick shithouse is usually short, squat and unattractive, but very, very solid.

What if the breasts (cup sizes) are lopsided? Could a woman be a 32 C/B, or in extreme cases 38 GG/B?

Breast Cancer Mastectomy.

Otherwise, breast asymmetry is normal. In fact, it's so normal that if you did find someone with perfectly symmetrical breasts, they probably had a blob job. Or they were genetically engineered/cloned, or they're actually aliens. ;) (in the case of photos--Photoshop is in play, or they know a really good makeup artist)

But then that goes for human appearance in general, although the bias is towards more symmetrical body parts being perceived as more attractive--probably as an unconscious indicator of good health.

I remember using quite a few, in Long Island, only an hour or three from NYC, and not only were they heavily used, many were painted by renowned vacationing artists, yet they were still more of a blight.